State
of Minnesota, Respondent
vs. Earl Wembley, Appellant – Case No. A05‑245:On appeal from his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct,
appellant Earl Wembley presents for review the question whether he should
receive a new trial because he was entitled to be present while the jury
reviewed, during its deliberations, the videotaped interview of the
complainant.(HennepinCounty)

Hoyt Properties, Inc., et al.,
Respondents vs. Production Resource Group, L.L.C., et al., Appellants – Case
No. A05-1293:Appellants Production Resource Group, Haas
Multiples Environmental Marketing and Design, Inc., d/b/a Entolo-Minneapolis,
and Entolo, Inc., appeal from a court of appeals decision reinstating a lawsuit
against them, brought by respondents Hoyt Properties, Inc., and Hoyt/Winnetka,
LLC, alleging fraudulent inducement in the settlement of litigation.At issue are:(1) whether statements made by appellants’ counsel during the
settlement negotiations were statements of fact or a legal opinion; and (2)
whether a reasonable jury could have concluded that respondents actually and
reasonably relied on the statements.(HennepinCounty)

Thursday, January 4, 2007, 9:00 a.m.

Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol

Ted
Harrison, Jr., a minor, by Audrey Harrison, his guardian ad litem, Respondent
vs. Amy Harrison, et al., Appellants – Case No. A05-1038:Respondent
Ted Harrison, Jr., then three years old, was injured when the car in which
he was riding was struck by another car, and he was released from his car seat
and ejected from the vehicle.Respondent, through his guardian ad litem, sued his parents for
negligence in installing and maintaining the car seat.The district court ruled, and the court of appeals
affirmed, that respondent’s suit could go forward despite Minnesota’s “seat
belt gag rule,” Minn. Stat. § 169.685 (2004).Section 169.685 generally bars the
introduction of evidence of the use of seat belts or child passenger restraints
in any litigation involving personal injuries resulting from the use or
operation of a motor vehicle, but includes an exception for cases involving “a
defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operating seat belt or child
passenger restraint system.”The issue
on appeal is whether respondent’s claims fall within the exception.(AnokaCounty)

State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Keith Hapana Crow, Appellant – Case No. A06-229:Appellant Keith Hapana Crow appeals from his convictions of aiding and
abetting murder in the second degree and aiding and abetting first-degree
murder (kidnapping).At the conclusion
of appellant’s trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of aiding and
abetting murder in the second degree, which was read in open court.The jury then informed the district court
that it had reached verdicts on the other counts but had not reduced the
verdicts to writing.Appellant contends
that the district court’s instructions to the jury to return to the jury room
and complete verdict forms as to the other counts constitutes double
jeopardy.Also at issue are:(1) whether the sentence of life without
possibility of release violates the constitutional ban on cruel or unusual
punishment; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant
guilty of aiding and abetting murder; and (3) whether appellant’s due
process rights were violated when he was denied a Frye/Mack hearing on the admissibility of expert testimony.Appellant raises other issues in a pro se
supplemental brief.(RedwoodCounty)

State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Dontrell Dyna Flowers, Appellant – Case No. A05-213:On
appeal from his conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person,
appellant Dontrell Dyna Flowers presents the following issues for review:(1) whether the search of appellant’s
car exceeded the permissible scope of the investigatory stop; (2) whether
police had probable cause to arrest appellant; (3) whether the district
court improperly permitted appellant to be impeached with a prior conviction;
(4) whether the district court should have granted a mistrial after the
state’s witness revealed information previously ruled inadmissible; and
(5) whether the district court properly instructed the jury that the knowledge
required for possession of a firearm could be inferred.(HennepinCounty)

David
T. Adams, Relator vs. DSR Sales, Inc., and Milwaukee Insurance Group,
Respondents – Case No. A06-1402:After relator David T. Adams was injured in
an accident for which relator received workers’ compensation benefits, he
entered into a settlement with the third party responsible for the
accident.At issue in this appeal is
whether the workers’ compensation insurer that paid relator’s benefits is
entitled to dollar-for-dollar subrogation benefits against the third-party
settlement because the insurer had no notice of the pending settlement.(Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)

Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center

Hans
Hagen Homes, Inc., Respondent vs. City of Minnetrista,
Appellant – Case No. A05-1686:Respondent Hans Hagen
Homes, Inc., applied for rezoning of certain property within the City of Minnetrista and for
expansion of the city’s Municipal Urban Services Area to encompass the
property.The city council denied the
application, a decision of which respondent had actual notice, but the city did
not give respondent written notice of the decision and the reasons for it
within the time specified by Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (2004).The issue on appeal is whether the city’s
failure to give respondent written notice of its decision and the reasons for
it within the time provided by statute mandates that the application for rezoning
be approved, or whether the court should adopt a requirement that the applicant
show prejudice resulting from the city’s failure to notify it of the decision
within the prescribed time period.(HennepinCounty)

State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Michael Neal Vance, Appellant – Case No. A05-459:Appellant Michael Neal Vance appeals from his conviction of third-degree
assault and third-degree burglary.The
issue on appeal is whether the district court committed plain error, entitling
appellant to a new trial, by failing to instruct the jury that the crime of
assault requires the intent to inflict injury.(DakotaCounty)